Publication number | US7120601 B2 |
Publication type | Grant |
Application number | US 10/173,743 |
Publication date | 10 Oct 2006 |
Filing date | 18 Jun 2002 |
Priority date | 18 Jun 2002 |
Fee status | Paid |
Also published as | US20030233301 |
Publication number | 10173743, 173743, US 7120601 B2, US 7120601B2, US-B2-7120601, US7120601 B2, US7120601B2 |
Inventors | Peng Chen, Moshe A. Milevsky |
Original Assignee | Ibbotson Associates, Inc. |
Export Citation | BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan |
Patent Citations (87), Non-Patent Citations (24), Referenced by (58), Classifications (7), Legal Events (3) | |
External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet | |
The present invention relates to a method and system for allocating retirement savings to finance retirement consumption. More particularly, the present invention relates to a method and system for optimally allocating investment assets within and between annuitized assets and non-annuitized assets having different degrees of risk and return.
With the large bulk of baby boomers getting closer to their golden years, a great deal of public interest is shifting toward how individuals should finance their retirement. Although a substantial portion of retirement needs is usually provided by company and government pensions, there is often a large gap that can only be funded with discretionary savings. Indeed, based on the Survey of Consumer Finances, the number one reason for households to save is to finance retirement.
One of the most important decisions investors have to make is how to allocate their retirement savings to finance their retirement consumption. Investors face two major risk factors when making asset allocation decisions in retirement: financial market risk and longevity risk. Financial market risk is the performance uncertainty of investment vehicles. It is typically measured and quantified by the volatility of the investment returns. Longevity risk, on the other hand, is the uncertainty of how long the consumer will need retirement income (i.e., the risk that the consumer could potentially outlive his or her investments). Financial market risk is related to financial market behavior and economic the environment; longevity risk is normally related to the health condition of the investor.
Traditionally, asset allocation is determined by constructing efficient portfolios for various risk levels based on modern portfolio theory (MPT) developed by Harry Markowitz (1952) “Portfolio Selection,” Journal of Finance, September 1952, pp.77–91; and later by Sharpe (1965) “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium,” Journal of Finance, September 1964. According to the investor's risk tolerance, one of the efficient portfolios is chosen. MPT is widely accepted in the academic and the finance industry as the primary tool for developing asset allocations. However, two important factors not considered in MPT make its effectiveness questionable when dealing with asset allocations for individual investors in retirement. First, longevity risk is not considered. Second, portfolios in retirement often face periodical withdrawals to finance retirement consumption. Being a one-period model, MPT does not take periodic withdrawals into consideration.
In “Optimum Consumption and Portfolio Rules in a Continuous-Time Model”, Journal of Economic Theory, (1971) Vol. 3, pp. 373–413, and in “Optimal Consumption, Portfolio and Life Insurance Rules for an Uncertain Lived Individual in a Continuous Time Model”, The Journal of Financial Economics, (1975) Vol. 2, pp. 187–203, a multi-period extension of MPT which incorporates insurance is disclosed. However, even this extension of MPT fails to account for the specifics of a desired retirement standard of living and the irreversibility of immediate annuities.
Annuitization involves paying a non-refundable lump sum to an insurance company. In exchange, the insurance company guarantees a constant life-long payment stream that can not be outlived, but is terminated upon death. The generic life payout annuity provides no bequest for heirs, although spousal protection, in the form of joint-and-last-survivor, can be purchased at additional cost. Annuities can be viewed as longevity insurance, a type of mortality-contingent claim.
To create the contract, the annuity (insurance) company receives money from each person who buys a payout annuity. The funds received from each person are pooled into a collective pool from which claim payments are made. An insured person's annuity claim is contingent on continued life. The annuity payments are calculated so that each recipient gets the largest amount that the company can pay without exceeding the fund created from the accumulations of the entire group. The funds from people who die earlier than average support those who live longer than average. Many people purchase life annuities in order to be assured of an income they can't outlive. Others hesitate to select a lifetime payout annuity because they must give up control of the funds and hence the amount they can pass to their heirs. Just like other types of insurance, the amount and kind of immediate annuities an investor should own depends on many factors, including: (i) how risk averse he or she is; (ii) how much wealth has been accumulated; (iii) how much is the retirement need; (iv) how long he or she needs the savings to last; and (v) how strongly he or she feels about bequest. The fees and costs of annuity investments relative to other investment vehicles (such as mutual funds) as well as the tax structure and the investor's tax bracket also have impacts on the optimal allocations.
Despite the importance of this decision to each and every retiree, there have been relatively few scholarly papers written or models developed on the normative topic of the optimal allocation to immediate annuities. Most of the literature tends to focus on a positive economic analysis of the immediate annuity market.
For example, a substantial body of literature has documented the extremely low levels of voluntary annuitization exhibited amongst elderly retirees. Strictly speaking, this phenomenon is inconsistent with results of the life-cycle model of savings and consumption disclosed by M. Yaari in “Uncertain Lifetime, Life Insurance and the Theory of the Consumer”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 32, pp. 137–150, (1965). Yaari examines a standard Ando & Modigliani life-cycle model of savings and consumption with no bequest motives, and demonstrates that all consumers hold “actuarial notes” (immediate annuities) as opposed to liquid assets. Yaari's study implies that when given the chance, retirees should convert their liquid assets to life annuities, which provide longevity insurance and protection against outliving one's money. The rationale behind Yaari's result is that returns from actuarial notes (life annuities) dominate all other assets because the “living” inherit the assets and returns of the “dead”. Moreover, at older ages, the higher probability of dying increases the relative return, conditional on survival, from actuarial notes.
Nevertheless, despite the highly appealing arguments in favor of annuitization, there is little evidence that retirees are voluntarily embracing this arrangement. Notably, very few people consciously choose to annuitize their marketable wealth. In the comprehensive Health and Retirement Survey (HRS), conducted in the U.S, only 1.57% of the HRS respondents reported annuity income. Likewise, only 8.0% of respondents with a defined contribution pension plan selected an annuity payout. The U.S. based Society of Actuaries, conducted a study that shows that less than 1% of variable annuity (VA) contracts were annuitized during the 1992–1994 period.
Brugiavini discloses a conventional model in “Uncertainty Resolution and the Timing of Annuity Purchases”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 50, pp. 31–62, (1993). Brugiavini examined the optimal time to annuitize, and concludes that it should be early in the life cycle. However, Brugiavini's model assumes that assets earns the same risk-free rate of return, and does not examine the best asset mix for annuities. In a similar vein, Blake, Cairns and Dowd (2000) “PensionMetrics: Stochastic Pension Plan Design during the Distribution Phase”, Pensions Institute Working Paper conducted extensive computer simulations to determine the annuity and pension draw down policy that provides the highest level of (exponential) utility. However, Blake et al. did not examine the implications of annuitizing at different ages, as it pertains to the best time to annuitize, or the best asset mix within the annuity.
In related research, S. Kapur and J. M. Orszag introduced immediate annuities into a Merton (1971) framework in “A Portfolio Approach to Investment and Annuitization During Retirement”, Birbeck College (University of London) Mimeo, May 1999. This study assumed that the risk-free rate is augmented by a mortality bonus that is proportional to the instantaneous hazard rate. However, this study ignored variable immediate annuities and the irreversibility of the annuity contract. As such, their results are difficult to apply in a portfolio context.
One-Period Model
A life payout annuity is a financial investment whose returns are enhanced by pooling mortality risk with others. Here is a simple example of a one-period life annuity that illustrates the concept of risk pooling. According to U.S. life tables compiled by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (
Now, imagine that five such 95 year-old females entered into the following legally binding agreement. Each of the five females has agreed to contribute $100 to a communal fund that will invest in Treasury bills yielding 5%. Then, according to the contract, at the end of the year, only the surviving females will be entitled to split the proceeds of the fund.
Clearly, the total contribution of $500 will grow to $525 by the end of the year. And, if all five females are still alive—they are now 96 years old—they will each receive $105. This is precisely the $100 investment, plus interest. If one of them dies during the next year, the remaining four will be entitled to split the $525, giving each a total of $131.25. Recall that the agreement stipulated that those who die cede control of their assets. The four survivors will therefore gain a return of 31.25% on their money. In fact, if two happen to die, the remaining three will get $175, which is an impressive 75% return on their money. In other words, the survivors' gains are comprised of their original principal, their interest, and other people's principal and interest. By pooling mortality risk and ceding bequests, everyone gains.
Technically, this agreement is called a tontine, also known as a pure endowment contract which will be referred to hereinafter as a one-period life annuity contract.
Of course, with only five females in the mortality pool, six different things can happen. In the two extreme cases, they all might die, or they all might survive. But with 10,000 such females entering into a one-period annuity agreement, it is pretty much assured that the $1,050,000 will be split among 8,000 survivors. In other words, the expected return from the contract for the survivors is (1,050,000/8,000)=$131.25, or a 31.25% gain. The numerator is the total return for the pool, and the denominator represents the survivors.
Algebraically, if R denotes the risk-free interest rate (U.S. Treasury Bills) per period, and p is the probability of survival per period, then the return from the one-period annuity is (1+R)/p−1>R, where p denotes the probability of survival. This is the return for the survivors. And again, the reason the return is greater than R is because the dead subsidize the living. Furthermore, the smaller the p, the greater is the 1/p and the greater is the return from the one-period life annuity.
Now, this arrangement is not as outrageous or artificial as it may first sound. In fact, it is the principle underlying all immediate annuities, and all pension plans for that matter. In practice, the agreement is made over a series of periods, as opposed to just one. But the mechanics are the same, and the survivors derive a higher return compared to placing their funds in a conventional asset (non-mortality contingent) asset.
Although the example we have provided assumes that R (the risk-free interest rate) is fixed, the same would apply for a Variable and unknown return denoted by X. Moreover, the exact same principle would apply with a variable investment return as well. In fact, the returns might be even higher. Namely, the 10,000 females can invest their $100 in a stock mutual fund that earns 5%, or 10% or even 20%. They do not know in advance, what the fund/pool will earn. At the end of the year, the annuitants will learn (or realize) their investment returns, and then split the gains among the surviving pool. Moreover, in the event the investment earns a negative return, i.e., loses money, the participants will share in the losses as well, but the effect will be mitigated by the mortality credits.
If five females invest $100 in a fund that earns a random return, the expected return for the survivors is (1+X)/p−1>X. This concept is the foundation of a variable immediate annuity, which is the counterpart to a fixed immediate annuity.
Both fixed and variable immediate annuities provide longevity insurance via the mortality credits but with fixed annuities the pool has been invested in fixed income securities, and with variable annuities the pool has been invested in variable return (read stocks, real estate, etc.) securities. The choices and decisions made between fixed and variable immediate annuities are identical to the choices between fixed and variable accumulation products. The optimal allocations should depend on the participant's risk aversion, comfort with the fluctuating stock market, time horizon, and budgeting requirements.
As such, the fixed immediate annuity is one particular asset class within the portfolio of longevity insurance products. Thus, providing a fixed immediate annuity without access to a variable immediate annuity is akin to offering a money market and bond fund in a (pension) savings plan without providing equity-based products to span the risk and return spectrum.
In practice, only insurance-chartered companies are authorized to provide these mortality-contingent products. In fact, most insurance companies go one step further and actually guarantee that you will receive the mortality credit enhancements, even if the mortality experience of the participants is better than expected. In other words, in the above-mentioned example, with an expected 20% mortality rate, they would guarantee that all survivors receive 31.25% on their money, regardless of whether or not 20% of the group died during the year.
Insurance companies are able to provide this guarantee by making very careful and conservative assumptions about the rate of return earned on assets. Furthermore, the greater the number of insurance annuities an insurance company sells, or has on its books, the lower the risk is in providing this guarantee. These are the ultimate economics of scale. In other words, the risks might be significant if they only sold five such policies, but with 500,000 policies, the probability of an adverse outcome is close to zero.
One aspect of the invention provides a system, method and machine-readable medium for allocating assets of an investor portfolio among annuity and nonannuity assets. According to this method, at least one probability of survival of the investor is retrieved. The investor selects, or has selected for him or her, a utility of consumption and a utility of bequest. Characteristics of a plurality of nonannuity assets and a plurality of annuity assets are retrieved, these characteristics including for each kind of asset at least one differentiating characteristic or moment, such as risk (standard deviation of return), an expected rate of return (based on a lognormal or other random distribution) or other measurable differentiating characteristic (such as skewness and kurtosis). In a preferred embodiment the method maximizes an objective utility function which is calculated as the sum of a utility of live state and a utility of a dead state, and takes into account the relative risk aversion of the investor. The live state and dead state utilities in turn are calculated as functions of the retrieved expected rates of return and values of a plurality of investment weighting factors, each weighting factor being attributed to a respective one of the annuity or nonannuity assets. Once a maximum of the objective utility function has been found, the investment weighting factors that result in that maximum can be used in allocating assets in the investor's portfolio or alternatively can be used by a portfolio manager to compare present allocations with optimum allocations. Preferably, the chosen objective utility function should account for the following factors:
(i) the investor's risk tolerance;
(ii) the investor's age;
(iii) the investor's subjective and objective probabilities of survival;
(iv) the investor's utility of consumption, and his or her utility of bequest;
(v) the expenses and fees of annuity and nonannuity assets, and
(vi) risk and return characteristics of each of the assets to which a portion of the investor's wealth could be allocated.
In a preferred embodiment, two different probabilities of survival of the investor are retrieved, an objective probability of survival which is actuarially determined on the basis of age, gender and possibly ethnic origin and a subjective probability of survival which depends upon the investor's own perception of health, genetic factors, etc. The subjective probability of survival is used to apportion the investor's wealth between the utility of the live state and the utility of the dead state. The objective probability of survival is used to determine effective rates of return for each of the annuity assets.
Various optimization methods can be used to find a maximum of the objective utility function. In several embodiments, all but one of the investment weighting factors each supplies an additional dimension to a search space, so that a space is created with (n−1) dimensions if there are n investment weighting factors. The last investment weighting factor is found by subtracting the other weighting factors from unity. The (n−1) dimensional search space is subdivided using any one of several known search algorithms, including a Golden Mean search, a Fibonacci search, the Method of Feasible Directions, simulated annealing or a basic “decimal” search in which the space is divided into a number of cells of equal dimension, the maximum cell is determined, and that cell is divided in turn.
After subdivision each cell is evaluated to see if the maximum occurs within it. The evaluation can be performed by a numerical integration method such as Simpson's Rule or the Adapted Simpson's Rule. The integrating function incorporates a measure of the investor's relative risk aversion. A number of division/evaluation passes are made until the maximum has been located to within a predetermined margin of error.
Systems and media are provided to carry out the above embodiments of the invention.
Further aspects of the invention and their advantages can be ascertained from the detailed description set forth below, when taken in conjunction with the drawings, in which like characters illustrate like parts and in which:
In the allocation model of the present invention it is assumed that the investor is choosing the allocations of his or her retirement portfolio to maximize his or her utility. In the illustrative embodiment, it is assumed that there are only four different assets to choose from: 1) a nonannuity risk-free asset; 2) a nonannuity risky asset; 3) an immediate fixed annuity; and 4) an immediate variable annuity. The present invention, however, is applicable to scenarios in which there are more kinds of assets available, and is further applicable to situations in which the number of nonannuity assets is not the same as the number of available annuity assets.
In another alternative approach to the four-asset scenario described below, the four asset classes illustrated herein can themselves be constructs or portfolios which consist of many other investment instruments whose riskiness and rate of return average to the values shown. Finally, it should be noted that while the illustrated embodiment assigns an equal rate of return for the nonrisky annuity R and the nonrisky non-annuity R, and an equal expected rate of return to a risky annuity X and a risky non-annuity X, this need not be the case.
The illustrated embodiment describes the invention using two primary investments (a stock mutual fund and a fixed-income mutual fund) and two immediate annuities based on these. But the invention has application to derivatives as well, such as options, collars and floors. Further, the selected assets to which the allocable wealth is to be distributed may not behave linearly; many immediate variable annuity (IVA) products have downside protection, such that the random return variable associated with the asset is truncated on the bottom. The category matrix below summarizes the random returns from the four possible asset classes shown in the illustrated embodiment.
TABLE #1 | ||||
The four basic asset classes | ||||
Alive | Dead | |||
Risk-Free Asset (T-bills): | R | R | ||
Risky Asset (Equity): | {tilde over (X)} | {tilde over (X)} | ||
Immediate Fixed Annuity: | (1 + R)/p − 1 | 0 | ||
Immediate Variable Annuity: | (1 + {tilde over (X)})/p − 1 | 0 | ||
Each of these four assets is assigned a respective investment weighting factor a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3 }or a_{4 }The present invention finds the asset allocation weights or investment weighting factors {a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3}, a_{4}} that maximize the objective function:
E[U(W)]={overscore (p)}×A×E[u(a _{1} wR+a _{2} wX+a _{3} wR/p+a _{4} wX/p)]+(1−{overscore (p)})×D×E[u(a _{1} wR+a _{2} wX)] (1)
such that
a _{1} +a _{2} +a _{3} +a _{4}=1
a_{i}>0
In the above function:
A more general utility function applicable to m annuity assets and n annuity assets can be written as follows:
where
a_{i}=investment weighting factor for ith nonannuity asset
{overscore (X)}_{i}=(one plus) random rate of return for ith nonannuity asset
b_{j}=investment weighting factor for jth annuity asset
{overscore (Y)}_{j}=(one plus) random rate of return for jth annuity asset
m=number of nonannuity assets
n=number of annuity assets
{overscore (X)}_{i }and {overscore (Y)}_{j }are net of expense of fees.
In the above equation, within each asset group (annuity or nonannuity), it is assumed that each asset differs from each other asset in risk (measured for example by standard deviation) and return (measured for example as the mean of a distribution of random returns), and that the assets occupy points on an efficient frontier, i.e., as the degree of risk decreases, the degree of return decreases also.
The model of the present invention incorporates the following decision factors:
(i) Investor's risk tolerance;
(ii) Investor's age;
(iii) Investor's subjective probability of survival;
(iv) Population objective (pricing) probability of survival;
(v) Investor's “live” consumption and bequest;
(vi) Investor's utility from “live” consumption and bequest;
(vii) Expenses and fees of annuity vs. non-annuitized investment instruments (these are simply deductions from the gross returns in order to obtain net returns, in the illustrated four-asset example R and {tilde over (X)}); and
(viii) Risk and return characteristics of risky and risk-free assets.
In the illustrated embodiment the mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) have been used to define expected rate of return and risk, and the use of mean and standard deviation in turn assumes the use of a standard log-normal distribution. The probability density function for a log-normal distribution is:
In the illustrated embodiment, the annuity and nonannuity equity-based instruments have a random return X within a distribution defined by two moments: a standard mean variation and a statistical log-normal mean. But other distributions can be used: standard normal, stable and other distributions that have more or less skewness and kurtosis. Similarly, the invention has application to models using serial correlations of returns.
For example, a standard normal distribution with no skew can be used. The probability density function for a standard normal distribution is:
Alternatively a logistic distribution with fatter tails than a standard normal distribution can be used. A probability distribution function producing such kurtosis is:
Other distributions can be found in William H. Greene, Econometric Analysis, Prentice Hall, 3rd ed. (1997).
In the above expression (1), the ratio of risk-free to risky assets is chosen as a function of an investor-specific risk aversion factor, gamma, and consumption c. But there are literally endless ways of specifying the objective function (utility function) with respect to risk aversion. Here are three other commonly used examples.
a) Constant Relative risk aversion utility function (CRRA), where utility is a function of the wealth (W) and γ is the measure of constant relative risk aversion and is always greater than zero.
b) Constant absolute risk aversion utility function (CARA), where utility is a function of the wealth (W) and γ is the measure of an investor's constant absolute risk aversion and is non-negative.
c) Loss Aversion Constant Relative risk aversion Utility Function, where loss aversion is added to the standard CRRA function. W_{T }is the wealth target, and λ is the measure of loss aversion, always greater than one.
u _{LA}(W)=(W−W _{T})^{r1}−λ(W _{T} −W)^{r2} (8)
Optimization Of Utility Function
Once the utility function and its inputs have been defined, the next step is to find a maximum of it. Since in the illustrated four-asset embodiment the weights (a1, a2, a3, a4) sum up to one, we essentially have only three weights to solve. Since, as functions of (α1, α2, α3), both E[U(W)] and its derivatives are defined by integrals that cannot be performed analytically, they must be performed numerically.
Although E[U(W)] is a non-linear function of the three free parameters (α1, α2, α3), it is strictly concave, and hence one need only find a local maximum in order to find the global maximum.
Several methods exist for finding this maximum. The ones discussed herein involve (a) defining a search space, (b) dividing the search space into intervals, (c) evaluating the utility function within the interval by integrating it, (d) choosing which interval appears to have the maximum within it, and repeating steps (b)–(d) by subdividing the previously selected interval, until the maximum has been located to an acceptable level of accuracy.
A preferred search method uses the Golden Mean or Golden Section. According to this method, the optimal value of the objective utility function is assumed to have been bracketed in an interval [a,b]. In the present invention, the interval is defined by the variations of allocations across all permissible asset classes. In the four-asset class example this will vary from 100% nonannuity cash (or other relatively risk-free nonannuity investment), 99% cash+1% nonannuity equity (or other relatively risky nonannuity investment), . . . , to 100% variable income annuity (VIA). One then evaluates the utility function at an intermediate point x and obtains a new smaller bracketing interval, either [a,x], or [x,b]. This process continues until the bracketing interval is acceptably small. It is critical to choose x to be the optimal point between [a,b] so that the decrease in the interval length is maximized when the function is as uncooperative as it can be, i.e., when the luck of the draw forces you to take the bigger bisected segment. According to the golden section, the optimal bracketing interval point x between [a,b] should be a fractional distance 0.38197 from one end (say a), and 0.61803 from the other end (say b). This process can be expanded to a multi-dimension optimization.
For a general discussion on optimization methods, see William H. Press, Brian P. Flannery, Saul A. Teukolsky, and William T. Vetterling, Numerical Recipes in C: the Art of Scientific Computing, Cambridge University Press, 1988.
An alternative search method according to the present invention uses the so-called Method of Feasible Directions, which will be explained herein in further detail below.
In optimizing the four-asset objective utility function by the Method of Feasible Directions, the following steps are performed:
Step (2) requires (after restating the linear program in “standard” form) the use of the simplex algorithm. The second, third and fourth constraints will acquire slack variables when put in standard form, and the fifth constraint will acquire a surplus variable, and hence also an auxiliary (a.k.a. artificial) variable. Depending on the components of the gradient ∇E[U(W)](B), the first constraint may acquire either a slack variable or a surplus (and hence also an auxiliary) variable. In any event, the presence of at least one auxiliary variable will require the use of the Two-Phase Simplex Method; Phase I determines an initial feasible point of the linear program if it exists (in our case it does), and Phase II determines the optimal point of the linear program.
Technically, step (3) cannot be implemented as written above, since the condition “d_{4}=0” is likely never to be achieved in practice; as a result, a tolerance limit must be chosen for d_{4}, which will determine the number of iterations of the algorithm.
Step (3) will require an additional method such as the Fibonacci Search or Golden Mean Search (GMS) algorithms for maximizing a function of a single variable. According to a presently preferred MFD embodiment, the Golden Mean Search algorithm is used because it is easier to code compared with the Fibonacci Search algorithm and almost as fast. However, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that other algorithms for maximizing a function of a single variable may readily be substituted. The number of iterations of the algorithm depends on the desired proximity of the calculated optimal point to the true optimal point.
Another search method which may be employed is a “basic” search, in which the search space is divided into a predetermined number of intervals, the function evaluated in each of them, one of the intervals then being chosen based on the maximum residing within it, the chosen interval then being subdivided into the predetermined number of subintervals, and repeating these steps until the maximum has been localized to within a predetermined degree of accuracy.
There are a number of ways to perform the required numerical integrations of E[U(W)] and ∇E[U(W)]; two are the Simpson's Composite Rule and the Adapted Simpson's Rule. For either, since the integrals in E[U(W)] and ∇E[U(W)] are over the unbounded interval [0,∞] we must break the integral into one over [0,1] and one over [1,∞]. The variable of integration x in the [1, ∞] interval is changed to y=1/x, therefore changing the interval to [0,1], and the two integrals over [0,1] are evaluated together. In certain cases, the numerical integration is not required. One such case is where the portfolio returns is log-normally distributed and the utility function is Constant Relative Risk Aversion. In this case, the moments of log-normal distribution are available numerically.
In one embodiment, the Adapted Simpson's Composite Rule is used because this technique makes it possible to impose a maximum error size by keeping track of the variation of the function being integrated, and using finer intervals where the function varies more, and larger intervals where the function varies less.
According to the illustrated embodiment, Simpson's Composite Rule is used with a “basic” search, by which are established 40 equally spaced subintervals over the interval [0,1]. For the interval [1, ∞], the feasible region α_{1}≧0, α_{2}≧0, α_{3}≧0 and α_{1}+α_{2}+α_{3}≦1 is divided into a grid of cells of size 0.2×0.2×0.2, and all of the nodes are evaluated to find the one (A_{11}, A_{12}, A_{13}) at which E[U(W)] is greatest. Since α1+α2+α3+α4=1, we can substitute α4=1−α1−α2−α3. Therefore, we can treat E[U(W)] and ∇E[U(W)] as a function of the three variables: α1, α2, and α3.
At the next stage, the part of the box [A_{11}−0.1, A_{11}+0.1]×[A_{12}−0.1, A_{12}+0.1]×[A_{13}−0.1, A_{13}+0.1] which lies inside the feasible region is divided into a grid of cells of size 0.02×0.02×0.02, and all nodes are searched to find the one (A_{21}, A_{22}, A_{23}) at which E[U(W)] is the greatest (A_{21}, A_{22}, A_{23 }are three of the four asset allocation weights, with the fourth being determined from the preceding three). Finally, the part of the box [A_{21}−0.01, A_{21}+0.01]×[A_{22}−0.01, A_{22}+0.01]×[A_{23}−0.01, A_{23}+0.01] which lies inside the feasible region is divided into a grid of cells of size 0.002×0.002×0.002, and all nodes are searched to find the one (A_{31}, A_{32}, A_{33}) at which E[U(W)] is the largest. The optimal point (α_{1}, α_{2}, α_{3}) is taken to be (A_{31}, A_{32}, A_{33}).
The first step 600 is the supply of the various inputs into the asset allocation engine, including p, {overscore (p)}, MeanX, StdDevX, c, and Gamma. The variable “p” represents the individual's objective probability of survival, whereas “pbar” ({overscore (p)}) represents the subjective probability of survival. According to the present embodiment, the objective probability of survival is determined from a look-up chart given the investor's age and gender and keyed into the model. However, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the system could be provided with an appropriate look-up table to determine the objective probability of survival if provided the appropriate parameters.
MeanX and StdDevX are the mean and standard deviation of a random distribution of returns (either lognormal or other distributions as previously discussed) from an investment in a relatively risky asset such as equities. This can be based on the realized, historical returns for these assets, or any other model or estimate known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Finally, c and Gamma are the coefficient of non-relative risk aversion and the coefficient of risk aversion, respectively.
In step 602, the value of “w” is set to 1 since the optimal asset mix does not depend on the initial wealth level w. The wealth level will affect risk aversion if the CRRA, CARA or LA risk aversion utility functions are used, but by the time the steps in
In steps 604 and 606 the number of increments (m) and the step size (h) to be used in the numerical integration of E[U(W)] are specified. According to the illustrated embodiment, the number of increments is set at 20 (m=20 and h=1/(2* m).
The number of increments impacts the accuracy of the numerical integration, and that accuracy may be increased by increasing the number of increments. However, there is a tradeoff between the number of increments and the speed of execution of the calculation.
In steps 608 and 610 the parameters mu and sigma of the Lognormal distribution of X (i.e. the mean and standard deviation of ln(X)) are determined.
Next, the first pass using Simpson's Composite Rule is performed in step 612, and the second pass is performed in step 620. The second pass using Simpson's Composite Rule yields the optimal asset mix for three of the four investment options with an acceptable degree of accuracy, and the fourth parameter is determined as shown in step 630 since the sum of all four parameters is by definition equal to unity (1).
Details of the first pass 612 are illustrated in
The flowchart of
The integrands differ depending on whether Gamma< >1 or Gamma=1. According to the preferred embodiment, an if-then statement 706 is used to signal different processing depending on whether or not Gamma is 1.
If Gamma, the coefficient of risk aversion, is not equal to 1 then the integration is performed using first integrands 708. Alternatively, if Gamma is equal to 1 then the integration is performed using second integrands 710.
One of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that in the for-next loop 700, B1 cannot be 0, since B1=B2=0 will lead to the expected utility of wealth in the “D” part of E[U(W)] being (-infinity). As will be explained below special allowances are necessary.
Details of the second pass 620 are illustrated in
The flowchart of
As shown in step 806, if Gamma, the coefficient of risk aversion, is not equal to 1 then the integration is performed using first integrands 808. Alternatively, if Gamma is equal to 1 then the integration is performed using second integrands 810. It should be noted that the same set of integrands are used in the second pass as were previously used in the first pass. Thus, when Gamma is not equal to 1 the various calculations shown in
The variable f (calculated at 730 in
The variable Aint1 (732 in
The variable Aint2 (734 in
The variable Dint1 (736 in
The function Dint2 (738 in
The function atn(x) (see step 730 in
As shown in
One will recall that the B1, B2, and B3 denote the respective variables for the three nested loops used to span the grid.
In the expressions 742–764 in FIGS. 7C and 782–804 in
“w” is set to 1 since the optimal asset mix does not depend on the wealth level w.
“R” is 1 plus the risk-free rate of return (e.g., 1.03).
“p” is the objective probability of survival.
“pbar” ({overscore (p)}) is the subjective probability of survival.
“h” is the step size in the numerical integration of E[U(W)].
“Gamma” is the coefficient of relative risk aversion.
Referring back to
In the steps 718 and 720, the value of “Max” is initialized during the first loop through For-Next loops 700, 702 and 704. Thereafter, in steps 722 and 724 the value of Max, A11, A12 and A13 are changed each time a new maximum value is detected for EU.
After the first calculation of EU, MAX is set to EU−1.
Referring back to
The second pass again uses three nested For . . . Next loops 900, 902, 904, to evaluate a grid with steps 0.02×0.02×0.02 in order to locate the point at which E[U(W)] is maximized.
It should be appreciated that the outermost loop cannot start at B1=A11−0.1, since if A11=0.1, then B1=0, and this will lead to the expected utility of wealth in the “D” part of E[U(W)] being (−∞). For this reason, the outermost loop, B1 is initially set at A11−0.08, and is incrementally increased each pass by 0.02 until B1 is equal to A11+0.1.
Like the first pass (612 in
As shown in step 906, if Gamma, the coefficient of risk aversion, is not equal to 1 then the integration is performed using first integrands 908. Alternatively, if Gamma is equal to 1 then the integration is performed using second integrands 910. It should be noted that the same set of integrands are used in the second pass as were previously used in the first pass. Thus, when Gamma is not equal to 1 the various calculations shown in
Next, “EA”, the expectation in the “A” part of E[U(W)], “ED”, the expectation in the “D” part of E[U(W)], and “EU”, the expectation of E[U(W)] are calculated in steps 912–916.
If a new maximal value for EU is determined in step 918, then the corresponding values of Max, A21 (second pass value of alpha_1), A22 (second pass value of alpha_2), and A23 (second pass value of alpha_3) are updated in step 920.
Referring once again to
As will be explained below, the optimal allocation weights may be output in step 640 by displaying the results on a display screen (not shown) or printing the results on a printer or the like (not shown).
Preferably the found values A_{21}, A_{22}, A_{23}, A_{24}, are used to come up with a portfolio recommendation for individuals in retirement or close to retirement. The investment weighting factors A_{21}–A_{24 }may be directly attributed to four different investment vehicles or may be mapped on to a table of a larger number of investment vehicles. These weighting factors may be used to automatically generate or rebalance an existing investor's portfolio or may be presented to the investor for his or her possible modification before being finalized.
In many cases, there will be some funds or investments of the investor which may not be reallocated—but it is still important that the overall financial wealth of the investor be correctly balanced among annuity, nonannuity, risky and relatively risk-free assets. This may happen, for example in a situation in which a financial planner has control over only a portion of the investor's financial investments. Such a case is illustrated in the flowchart of
At step 1006, the entire financial wealth of the investor is optimized according to the method of the invention as described herein. This will output investment weighting factors a_{1 }a_{n}. At step 1010, the amounts of wealth in the allocatable assets are adjusted to that the total financial wealth of the investor is allocated according to the investment weighting factors.
In an alternative embodiment, the investment weighting factors can be used to construct better products, typically by adding annuity assets to existing investing company products. In another alternative, the investment weighting factors can be used as a tool by a financial planner to reallocate the assets of an investor after making a comparison to present assets. Such a use for the investment weighting factors is shown in
At step 1030, the present allocations are compared with the optimum allocations. Then at step 1032, the actual allocations are adjusted in light of the recommended allocations.
A representative system suitable for carrying out the invention is illustrated in
Referring to
The schematic representation of bus 106 is shown in
Computer 102 will also have a random access memory unit or units 108 connected to the bus 106. RAM 108 (which may be DRAM, SDRAM or other known types) typically has loaded into it the operating system of the computer 102 and executable instructions for one or more special applications designed to carry out the invention. Computer 102 also has electronic read-only memory 110 for storing those programs such as the BIOS which are non-volatile and persist after the computer 102 is shut down.
In alternative embodiments of the invention, one or more components of the invention's logic may be “hard-wired” into the ROM 110 instead of loaded as software instructions into RAM 108. ROM 110 can consist of or comprise electrically programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable and programmable read-only memory (EEPROM) of either flash or nonflash varieties, or other sorts of read-only memory such as programmable fuse or antifuse arrays.
In a typical architecture, a computer program suitable for carrying out the invention will be stored on a mass storage device 112, such as an optical disk or magnetic hard drive. The asset data used as a basis for portfolio selection will typically exist as a database on device 112 but could reside on a separate database server and be accessed remotely through a network. Bus 106 connects mass storage device 112 to RAM 108.
The computer 102 is connected to various peripheral devices used to communicate with an operator, such as display 114, keyboard 116, mouse 118, and printer 120. The computer 102 also uses a communications device 122 such as a modem or a network card to communicate to other computers and equipment.
As previously described, the asset allocation weights a_{21}–a_{24 }(also known as investment weighting factors a_{1}–a4) may be used to recommend to an investor an allocation of his or her assets among a predetermined set of investment vehicles. In
The financial advisor computer 102 may further formulate investment directions concerning the allocation of assets among certain predetermined investment vehicles of the portfolio of the investor. These instructions may be conveyed over a communications link to a portfolio manager computer (not shown). The portfolio manager computer would purchase and sell shares in mutual funds according to the direction of the financial advisory computer 102. The portfolio manager may manage the portfolio of the investor individually, or may manage a retirement plan or other collective plan that includes the account of the investor. All transactions and instructions are made over secure communication paths.
The computer 102 may include a web server acting as a host for a web site, on which can be displayed a table of portfolios selectable by an investor, similar to
To understand the predictions of the model of the present invention, let us look at four different cases so that we can see the effect of changing parameters on the optimal allocation. Each case uses the same capital market assumptions. For the sake of example assume that the return from the risk-free (T-bills) asset class is 5% per annum with no volatility. Likewise assume that the return from the risky asset is log-normally distributed with a mean value of 10% and a standard deviation of 20%. This implies a risk premium of 7%, which is in line with historical estimates.
Many people might feel they are less (or more) healthy than the numbers indicated by the Individual Annuity Mortality 2000 basic table of
The utility preferences for the example will be taken from within the Constant Relative Risk Aversion (CRRA) family, with a CRRA coefficient of γ. CRRA coefficient γ typically has a value in the range of 1 to 6, although it can be as high as 10 or 20. Gamma can be obtained as a result of the answers of the investor to a questionnaire. Each of the below listed cases will assume that the individual is a 60-year-old male who would like to allocate his portfolio across the four asset classes (1) risk-free asset; 2) risky asset; 3) immediate fixed annuity; and 4) immediate variable annuity). Finally, each case will assume a 20-year horizon as representing the one-period. In other words the individual intends to liquidate the immediate annuities, consume, and re-allocate (i.e. rebalance) assets only after 20 years. It should be understood that these assumptions can be easily modified to accommodate other utility functions, asset return distributions, mortality probabilities, and horizons. Moreover, the initial wealth level does not have any impact on the allocations for the one-period model.
Case #1: Total Altruism and Complete Bequest Motives
In this case, we assume the investor's utility is derived entirely from bequest. In other words his utility of bequest is assumed to be one and his utility of consumption is zero, that is, A=0 and D=1. The objective probability of survival is 65% (roughly equal to the survival probability of a 60-year-old male in the next 20 years) and the subjective probability is the same 65%. Using these input parameters in the model described in Eqn. (1) above, the optimal allocations to the assets across various relative risk aversion levels are as presented in
As shown in
Case #2: No Bequest Motives
This case maintains the same age (gender), survival probability and time horizon as the previous case, but simply reduces the strength of bequest from D=1 to D=0. In other words, 100% of the utility weight is placed on ‘live’ consumption. The optimal allocations to the assets across various risk aversion levels are presented in
As shown in
Case #3: 20% Bequest Motives and 80% Consumption Motives
This case maintains the same age (gender), survival probability and time horizon as the previous case, but changes the strength of bequest from D=0, to a more realistic D=0.2. In other words, 80% of the utility weight is placed on ‘live’ consumption. The optimal allocations to the assets across various risk aversion levels are presented in
There are several interesting results in the allocation shown in
Second, the allocation between risky (both variable IA and equity) and risk-free (cash and fixed IA) is almost identical to that in Case #1 and Case #2 at comparable risk aversion levels. This indicates that the changes in the investor's bequest vs. consumption motive do not significantly impact the investor's behavior regarding risk. The optimal allocation between risky and risk-free assets is determined by the investor's risk tolerance.
Third, the allocation to annuities decreases as the investor's risk aversion increases. In other words, more risk averse investors will avoid immediate life annuities. This makes intuitive sense, since the investor could get little or no utility from immediate annuity investments if he dies shortly after the purchase. With traditional investments, there will be some left for their heirs. It seems that higher aversion to risk increases the implicit weight on the utility of bequest. For an investor with a risk aversion level of 2, the optimal allocation is 22% cash (“cash” being used herein as shorthand for an efficient investment vehicle of very low risk), 38% equity, 14% FIA, and 26% variable IA.
Case #4: Lower Subjective Survival Probability
In the fourth case, we maintain the same parameters as the third case but change the subjective survival rate ({overscore (p)}) to be smaller than the objective survival rate (p). We assume ({overscore (p)})=0.5 and p=0.65. All other parameters are left the same. The implication is simple. The investor believes that he/she has a lower than average probability of survival. Intuitively, such an investor would allocate less to immediate annuities, since he/she is expecting a higher mortality probability than the average. See
In
The above four cases have assumed a single male as the investor. This can be changed to single female or a married couple simply by replacing the probability of survival to parameters that are accurate for a single female or for the joint probability of survival for a couple.
In summary, a method and system for performing optimal asset allocation in the presence of fixed and variable immediate life annuities has been shown and described.
While preferred embodiments of the present invention have been described in the above detailed description, and illustrated in the drawings, the invention is not limited thereto but only by the scope and spirit of the appended claims.
Cited Patent | Filing date | Publication date | Applicant | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5148365 | 15 Aug 1989 | 15 Sep 1992 | Dembo Ron S | Scenario optimization |
US5774881 | 30 Oct 1995 | 30 Jun 1998 | Efi Actuaries | Method of determining optimal asset allocation utilizing asset cash flow simulation |
US5806047 | 25 Sep 1995 | 8 Sep 1998 | Metlife Life Insurance Company | System for combined pool portfolio |
US5812987 | 13 Mar 1995 | 22 Sep 1998 | Barclays Global Investors, National Association | Investment fund management method and system with dynamic risk adjusted allocation of assets |
US5819238 | 13 Dec 1996 | 6 Oct 1998 | Enhanced Investment Technologies, Inc. | Apparatus and accompanying methods for automatically modifying a financial portfolio through dynamic re-weighting based on a non-constant function of current capitalization weights |
US5884287 | 11 Apr 1997 | 16 Mar 1999 | Lfg, Inc. | System and method for generating and displaying risk and return in an investment portfolio |
US5911135 | 16 Apr 1991 | 8 Jun 1999 | Proprietary Financial Products, Inc. | System for managing financial accounts by a priority allocation of funds among accounts |
US5911136 | 26 Mar 1997 | 8 Jun 1999 | Proprietary Financial Products, Inc. | System for prioritized operation of a personal financial account comprising liabilities and investment assets |
US5918217 | 10 Dec 1997 | 29 Jun 1999 | Financial Engines, Inc. | User interface for a financial advisory system |
US5933815 | 1 May 1995 | 3 Aug 1999 | The Equitable Life Assurance Society Of The United States | Computerized method and system for providing guaranteed lifetime income with liquidity |
US5999917 | 29 Aug 1996 | 7 Dec 1999 | Bancorp Services, L.L.C. | Automated system for managing a non-qualified deferred compensation plan |
US6003018 | 9 Sep 1998 | 14 Dec 1999 | Michaud Partners Llp | Portfolio optimization by means of resampled efficient frontiers |
US6012043 | 9 Sep 1996 | 4 Jan 2000 | Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. | Computerized system and method used in financial planning |
US6012044 | 25 May 1999 | 4 Jan 2000 | Financial Engines, Inc. | User interface for a financial advisory system |
US6018722 | 19 Jun 1997 | 25 Jan 2000 | Aexpert Advisory, Inc. | S.E.C. registered individual account investment advisor expert system |
US6021397 | 2 Dec 1997 | 1 Feb 2000 | Financial Engines, Inc. | Financial advisory system |
US6055517 | 30 Jan 1998 | 25 Apr 2000 | Efi Actuaries | Method of determining optimal asset allocation utilizing asset cash flow simulation |
US6078904 | 16 Mar 1998 | 20 Jun 2000 | Saddle Peak Systems | Risk direct asset allocation and risk resolved CAPM for optimally allocating investment assets in an investment portfolio |
US6154732 | 25 Jul 1997 | 28 Nov 2000 | Guidedchoice.Com | System for providing investment advice and management of pension assets |
US6205434 | 18 Dec 1995 | 20 Mar 2001 | The Evergreen Group Incorporated | Computerized indenture plan allocation determination management and reporting system |
US6219650 | 8 Feb 2000 | 17 Apr 2001 | Efi Actuaries | Method of determining optimal asset allocation utilizing asset cash flow simulation |
US6240399 | 2 Jul 1999 | 29 May 2001 | Glenn Frank | System and method for optimizing investment location |
US6253192 | 2 Sep 1997 | 26 Jun 2001 | The Quantam Consultancy Group (Proprietary) Limited | Method of personal financial planning |
US6275814 | 27 Nov 1996 | 14 Aug 2001 | Investment Strategies Network | Investment portfolio selection system and method |
US6282520 | 9 Sep 1998 | 28 Aug 2001 | Metropolitan Life Insurance Company | Computer system and methods for allocation of the returns of a portfolio among a plurality of investors with different risk tolerance levels and allocation of returns from an efficient portfolio |
US6292787 | 11 Sep 1998 | 18 Sep 2001 | Financial Engines, Inc. | Enhancing utility and diversifying model risk in a portfolio optimization framework |
US6336103 | 2 Aug 1989 | 1 Jan 2002 | Nardin L. Baker | Rapid method of analysis for correlation of asset return to future financial liabilities |
US6360210 | 12 Feb 1999 | 19 Mar 2002 | Folio Trade Llc | Method and system for enabling smaller investors to manage risk in a self-managed portfolio of assets/liabilities |
US6405179 | 4 Feb 2000 | 11 Jun 2002 | Saddle Peak Systems | System and method for data collection, evaluation, information generation, and presentation |
US6430542 | 26 Aug 1998 | 6 Aug 2002 | American Express Financial Corporation | Computer-implemented program for financial planning and advice system |
US6484151 | 23 Jul 1999 | 19 Nov 2002 | Netfolio, Inc. | System and method for selecting and purchasing stocks via a global computer network |
US6484152 | 29 Dec 1999 | 19 Nov 2002 | Optimumportfolio.Com, Llc | Automated portfolio selection system |
US6601044 | 24 Aug 1998 | 29 Jul 2003 | Foliofn, Inc. | Method and apparatus for enabling individual or smaller investors or others to create and manage a portfolio of securities or other assets or liabilities on a cost effective basis |
US6609110 | 3 Feb 2000 | 19 Aug 2003 | Citibank, N.A. | Method and system for retail investment objective setting |
US20020002521 | 23 Feb 2001 | 3 Jan 2002 | Shearer James W. | Load aware optimization |
US20020013751 | 18 Oct 1999 | 31 Jan 2002 | Andrea Marie Facciani | Automated system for managing a non-qualified deferred compensation plan |
US20020013754 * | 3 Apr 2001 | 31 Jan 2002 | Glenn Frank | Financial optimization system and method |
US20020038271 | 5 Feb 2001 | 28 Mar 2002 | Friend Edward H. | Method of determining optimal asset allocation utilizing asset cash flow simulation |
US20020046145 | 29 May 2001 | 18 Apr 2002 | Korin Ittai | Method and system for analyzing performance of an investment portfolio together with associated risk |
US20020059127 | 18 Jan 2002 | 16 May 2002 | Brown Daniel P. | Method and apparatus for tax efficient investment management |
US20020062272 | 3 Dec 2001 | 23 May 2002 | Kee-Woung Kim | Personalized investment consulting system implemented on network and method for the same |
US20020091605 | 20 Dec 2000 | 11 Jul 2002 | Labe Russell Paul | Asset allocation optimizer |
US20020103733 | 12 Dec 2000 | 1 Aug 2002 | Manning & Napier Advisors, Inc. | Process, system and financial planning engine for determining at least one financial indicator for use in achieving a particular financial goal |
US20020107770 | 13 Dec 2000 | 8 Aug 2002 | Meyer Chadwick M. | System for allocating funds in a plurality of stock portfolios |
US20020123951 | 18 Oct 2001 | 5 Sep 2002 | Olsen Richard B. | System and method for portfolio allocation |
US20020123953 | 17 Dec 2001 | 5 Sep 2002 | Donald Goldfarb | Systems and methods for providing robust investment portfolios |
US20020128941 | 8 Mar 2001 | 12 Sep 2002 | Champion Robert R. | Techniques for generating and managing electronic investment contracts |
US20020138381 | 16 Jan 2001 | 26 Sep 2002 | Christopher Tomecek | Individually managed accounts with multiple style allocation options |
US20020138383 | 2 Feb 2001 | 26 Sep 2002 | Rhee Thomas A. | Real life implementation of modern portfolio theory (MPT) for financial planning and portfolio management |
US20020138386 | 12 Jul 2001 | 26 Sep 2002 | Maggioncalda Jeff N. | User interface for a financial advisory system |
US20020138388 | 31 Jan 2002 | 26 Sep 2002 | Paul Reiss | Method and system for reconciling equity hedge funds |
US20020138389 | 10 May 2002 | 26 Sep 2002 | Martone Brian Joseph | Browser interface and network based financial service system |
US20020152151 | 5 Oct 2001 | 17 Oct 2002 | William Baughman | Integrated investment portfolio management system and method |
US20020156710 | 29 Mar 2002 | 24 Oct 2002 | Lee Ryder | Personal or family financial accounting and management system |
US20020169701 | 11 Feb 2002 | 14 Nov 2002 | Tarbox Brian C. | Systems and methods for improving investment performance |
US20020174042 | 12 Apr 2002 | 21 Nov 2002 | Robert Arena | System, method, and computer program product for allocating assets among a plurality of investments to guarantee a predetermined value at the end of a predetermined time period |
US20020174045 | 15 Feb 2002 | 21 Nov 2002 | Robert Arena | System, method, and computer program product for cost effective, dynamic allocation of assets among a plurality of investments |
US20020174046 | 5 Apr 2002 | 21 Nov 2002 | Mistretta Mark J. | Synthetic fixed income principal protected vehicle and methodology |
US20020174047 | 5 Apr 2002 | 21 Nov 2002 | Fernholz Erhard R. | Technique for managing, through use of combined optimized weights, a financial portfolio formed of multiple weight-based component portfolios all having the same securities |
US20020184129 | 20 Feb 2002 | 5 Dec 2002 | Robert Arena | System, method, and computer program product for providing stabilized annuity payments and control of investments in a variable annuity |
US20030004849 | 5 Sep 2001 | 2 Jan 2003 | Deborah Velez | Method and system for allocating assets in emerging markets |
US20030009409 | 31 May 2002 | 9 Jan 2003 | Glenn Horner | Systems and Methods for providing risk/return measures for securities lending programs |
US20030014343 | 11 Dec 2001 | 16 Jan 2003 | Jones W. Richard | Long-term investing |
US20030028463 | 15 Feb 2002 | 6 Feb 2003 | Long Austin M. | Process and system for determining correlation of public and private markets and risk of private markets |
US20030028466 | 31 Jul 2002 | 6 Feb 2003 | American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc. | System and method for providing financial planning and advice |
US20030065602 | 16 May 2002 | 3 Apr 2003 | Kenneth Yip | Methods and systems for preference-based dynamic passive investing |
US20030078867 | 17 Sep 2001 | 24 Apr 2003 | Scott Jason S. | Enhancing utility and diversifying model risk in a portfolio optimization framework |
US20030083972 | 19 Oct 2002 | 1 May 2003 | Williams James Benjamin | Methods for issuing, distributing, managing and redeeming investment instruments providing securitized annuity options |
US20030088489 | 13 Dec 2000 | 8 May 2003 | Optimizeusa.Com | Automated investment advisory software and method |
US20030088492 | 16 Aug 2002 | 8 May 2003 | Damschroder James Eric | Method and apparatus for creating and managing a visual representation of a portfolio and determining an efficient allocation |
US20030093347 | 9 Oct 2002 | 15 May 2003 | Gray Dale F. | Managing risk using macro-financial risk analysis |
US20030097324 | 21 Nov 2002 | 22 May 2003 | Speckman Stuart Julian | Tool for analyzing investment plans |
US20030110113 | 26 Jun 2001 | 12 Jun 2003 | William Martin | Trade allocation |
US20030120574 | 15 Nov 2002 | 26 Jun 2003 | Foliofn, Inc. | Method and apparatus for creating investment advice marketplace |
US20030120575 | 15 Nov 2002 | 26 Jun 2003 | Foliofn, Inc. | Method and apparatus for providing investment advice to multiple investors |
US20030120576 | 25 Nov 2002 | 26 Jun 2003 | Duckworth Frank A. | Method and apparatus for diversifying investment based on risk tolerance |
US20030126054 | 28 Dec 2001 | 3 Jul 2003 | Purcell, W. Richard | Method and apparatus for optimizing investment portfolio plans for long-term financial plans and goals |
US20030144936 | 12 Oct 2001 | 31 Jul 2003 | Sloan Ronald E. | Automated coaching for a financial modeling and counseling system |
US20030172018 | 5 Mar 2002 | 11 Sep 2003 | Ibbotson Associates, Inc. | Automatically allocating and rebalancing discretionary portfolios |
US20030195829 | 10 Apr 2002 | 16 Oct 2003 | Burlington Hall Asset Management | Method and apparatus for producing time variant asset allocation |
US20030208427 | 13 Dec 2000 | 6 Nov 2003 | Dirk Peters | Automated investment advisory software and method |
US20030208429 | 28 Feb 2001 | 6 Nov 2003 | Bennett Levitan S | Method and system for managing a portfolio |
US20030212622 | 19 May 2003 | 13 Nov 2003 | Wallman Steven M.H. | Method and apparatus for enabling individual or smaller investors or others to create and manage a portfolio of securities or other assets or liabilities on a cost effective basis |
US20030225663 | 28 Mar 2003 | 4 Dec 2003 | Horan James P. | Open platform system and method |
US20040002892 | 20 Feb 2003 | 1 Jan 2004 | Martin Gluck | Portal for global portfolio management system method & apparatus |
JP2001076057A | Title not available | |||
WO2001093153A1 * | 15 May 2001 | 6 Dec 2001 | Market Data Corp | Nominative adaptive programming for a class of non-linear mixed integer portfolio optimization problems |
Reference | ||
---|---|---|
1 | "Optimal Consumption, Portfolio and Life Insurance Rules for an Uncertain Lived Individual in a Continuous Time Model," Journal of Financial Economics, (1975) vol. 2, pp. 187-203. | |
2 | Blake, Cairns and Dowd (2000) "PensionMetrics: Stochastic Pension Plan Design during the Distribution Phase," Pensions Institute Working Paper. | |
3 | Brugiavini, "Uncertainty Resolution and the Timing of Annuity Purchases," Journal of Public Economics, vol. 50, pp. 31-62, (1993). | |
4 | Delaney and Reichenstein, "An Expanded Portfolio View Includes Real Estate and Human Capital", AAll Journal (Jul. 1996), pp. 7-11. | |
5 | Hanna and Chen, "Subjective and Objective Risk Tolerance: Implications For Optimal Portfolios", Financial Counseling and Investing, vol. 8(2), pp. 17-26 (1997). | |
6 | Harry Markowitz, "Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, Mar. 1952, pp. 77-91. | |
7 | John Norstad, "Asset Allocation and Portfolio Survival" (Feb. 15, 1999; updated Oct. 31, 2003). | |
8 | M. Yaari, "Uncertain Lifetime, Life Insurance and the Theory of the Consumer," Review of Economic Studies, vol. 32, pp. 137-150, (1965). | |
9 | Professor Laurence Booth, "Asset Allocation and the Retirement Problem" (Apr. 4, 2003). | |
10 | Robert C. Merton, "Optimum Consumption amd Portfolio Rules in a Continuous-Time Model," Journal of Economic Theory, (1971) vol. 3, pp. 373-413. | |
11 | S. Kapur and J.M. Orszag, "A Portfolio Approach to Investment and Annuitization During Retirement," Birbeck College (University of London) Mimeo, May 1999. | |
12 | * | Scott F. Richard, Carnegie-Mellon University "Optimal Consumption, Portfolio and Life Insurance Rules for an Uncertain Lived Individual in a Continuous Time Model", Journal of Financial Economics 2(1975) 187-203, North Holland Publing Company. |
13 | Web page: Advisor Software, Inc., "Advisor Software: Solutions-Advice Modules", http://www.advisorsoftware.com/solutions/asset<SUB>-</SUB>allocation.html, copyr. 2004. | |
14 | Web page: Advisor Software, Inc., "Advisor Software: Solutions-Advice Modules", http://www.advisorsoftware.com/solutions/risk<SUB>-</SUB>assessment.html, copyr. 2004. | |
15 | Web page: Advisor Software, Inc., "Advisor Software: Solutions-Portfolio Rebalancing Solution", http://www.advisorsoftware.com/solutions/portfolio<SUB>-</SUB>rebalancing.html, copyr. 2003. | |
16 | Web page: Efficient Solutions, Inc., http://www.effisols.com, believed posted at least as early as Mar. 2, 2001, copyr. 1998-2002. | |
17 | Web page: Horace Mann Educators Corporation, "Rebalancing keeps your portfolio in sync", http://www.horacemann.com/html/annuity/rebalance.html, copyr. 2002. | |
18 | Web page: ITS Associates, Inc., -Query2Trader, http://www.itsww.com/products/trader.htm, last updated Apr. 3, 2000, copyr. 1999. | |
19 | Web page: ITS Associates, Inc.-Products, http://www.itsww.com/products, last updated Feb. 26, 2002, copyr. 1999. | |
20 | Web page: Portfolio Survival Simulator, http://www.portfoliosurvival.com/allocations.htm. | |
21 | Web page: Strategic Financial Solutions, LLC, "PerTrac 2000: Portfolio Optimization", http://www.pertrac2000.com/optimization.asp, copyr. 2001. | |
22 | Web page: Strategic Financial Solutions, LLC., "PerTrac 2000 Softawre: Asset Allocation", http://www.pertrac2000.com/allocation.asp, copyr. 2002. | |
23 | William F. Sharpe, "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions of Risk" Journal of Finance, Sep. 1964, vol. 19, pp. 425-442. | |
24 | William H. Press, Brian P. Flannery, Saul A. Teukolsky, and William T. Vetterling, "Numerical Recipes in C: the Art of Scientific Computing," Cambridge University Press, 1988. |
Citing Patent | Filing date | Publication date | Applicant | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US7398241 | 8 Jun 2001 | 8 Jul 2008 | Genworth Financial, Inc. | Method and system for portable retirement investment |
US7516095 | 27 Feb 2008 | 7 Apr 2009 | Advisor Software, Inc. | Stochastic control system and method for multi-period consumption |
US7617138 | 27 May 2005 | 10 Nov 2009 | Towers Perrin Forster & Crosby, Inc. | Estimating financial valuation of benefit plans |
US7647239 * | 10 Sep 2004 | 12 Jan 2010 | Edward A. Macdonald | Methods and systems for smoothing of the assumed long-term discount rate for pension plans and actuarial valuations |
US7689494 | 26 Jan 2007 | 30 Mar 2010 | Advisor Software Inc. | Simulation of portfolios and risk budget analysis |
US7720738 * | 3 Jan 2003 | 18 May 2010 | Thompson James R | Methods and apparatus for determining a return distribution for an investment portfolio |
US7769664 | 10 May 2007 | 3 Aug 2010 | George Egan | Guaranteed principal investment system, product and method |
US7805368 | 31 May 2007 | 28 Sep 2010 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Debit purchasing of stored value card for use by and/or delivery to others |
US7809595 | 17 Sep 2003 | 5 Oct 2010 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Na | System and method for managing risks associated with outside service providers |
US7809642 | 17 Feb 2006 | 5 Oct 2010 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Debit purchasing of stored value card for use by and/or delivery to others |
US7809643 | 31 Oct 2007 | 5 Oct 2010 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Debit purchasing of stored value card for use by and/or delivery to others |
US7818253 | 20 Jul 2007 | 19 Oct 2010 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Debit purchasing of stored value card for use by and/or delivery to others |
US7840464 | 2 Mar 2007 | 23 Nov 2010 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Creating and trading building block mortality derivatives to transfer and receive mortality risk in a liquid market |
US7840468 | 2 Mar 2007 | 23 Nov 2010 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | System and method for a risk management framework for hedging mortality risk in portfolios having mortality-based exposure |
US7860789 | 24 Jul 2002 | 28 Dec 2010 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Multiple account advanced payment card and method of routing card transactions |
US7882022 * | 13 Jun 2004 | 1 Feb 2011 | Peter K. Trzyna | Computer support for mortgage lock option |
US7890422 | 9 Jul 2008 | 15 Feb 2011 | Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Multiple account advanced payment card and method of routing card transactions |
US7925564 | 31 Jul 2008 | 12 Apr 2011 | Hartford Fire Insurance Company | Computer system and method for determining optimal asset allocation |
US7925565 | 6 Apr 2009 | 12 Apr 2011 | Advisor Software Inc. | Stochastic control system and method for multi-period consumption |
US8010388 | 17 Jan 2007 | 30 Aug 2011 | Hartford Fire Insurance Company | Longevity insurance |
US8024248 | 30 Sep 2005 | 20 Sep 2011 | Genworth Financial, Inc. | System and method for imbedding a defined benefit in a defined contribution plan |
US8126746 | 16 Dec 2008 | 28 Feb 2012 | Hartford Fire Insurance Company | System and method for processing and administering flexible guaranteed income payments |
US8150755 | 12 Apr 2011 | 3 Apr 2012 | Hartford Fire Insurance Company | Computer system and method for determining optimal asset allocation |
US8239307 * | 1 Jul 2009 | 7 Aug 2012 | The Penn State Research Foundation | Asset allocation based on expected utility of time and wealth |
US8301527 * | 7 Jul 2006 | 30 Oct 2012 | Tarbox Brian C | Systems and methods for improving investment performance |
US8335736 | 2 Mar 2012 | 18 Dec 2012 | Hartford Fire Insurance Company | Computer system and method for determining optimal asset allocation |
US8359212 | 30 Aug 2011 | 22 Jan 2013 | Hartford Fire Insurance Company | System and method for processing data related to longevity insurance |
US8370242 | 25 Feb 2005 | 5 Feb 2013 | Genworth Financial, Inc. | Systems and methods for providing a benefit product with periodic guaranteed minimum income |
US8412545 | 15 Sep 2004 | 2 Apr 2013 | Genworth Financial, Inc. | System and process for providing multiple income start dates for annuities |
US8433634 | 1 May 2009 | 30 Apr 2013 | Genworth Financial, Inc. | Systems and methods for providing a benefit product with periodic guaranteed income |
US8473392 * | 11 Oct 2010 | 25 Jun 2013 | Ryan Hinchey | System and method for evaluation and comparison of variable annuity products |
US8515848 | 29 Mar 2010 | 20 Aug 2013 | Advisor Software, Inc. | Method and system balancing resources and claims into retirement |
US8521633 | 26 Sep 2011 | 27 Aug 2013 | Financial Engines, Inc. | Creating and maintaining a payout-ready portfolio within an investment plan to generate a sustainable income stream |
US8533080 | 16 Apr 2003 | 10 Sep 2013 | Corey Blaine Multer | Methods and systems for providing liquidity options and permanent legacy benefits for annuities |
US8548890 * | 9 Nov 2010 | 1 Oct 2013 | Gerd Infanger | Expected utility maximization in large-scale portfolio optimization |
US8566191 * | 5 Jul 2005 | 22 Oct 2013 | Fmr Llc | Generating an annuity payment using a dynamic asset allocation investment |
US8612263 | 19 Dec 2008 | 17 Dec 2013 | Genworth Holdings, Inc. | Systems and methods for providing a cash value adjustment to a life insurance policy |
US8725614 | 1 Aug 2011 | 13 May 2014 | Financial Engines, Inc. | Creating and maintaining a payout-ready portfolio within an investment plan to generate a sustainable income stream |
US8781929 | 27 Feb 2002 | 15 Jul 2014 | Genworth Holdings, Inc. | System and method for guaranteeing minimum periodic retirement income payments using an adjustment account |
US8781937 | 4 Sep 2012 | 15 Jul 2014 | Qwema Group, Inc. | Optimal portfolio withdrawal during retirement in the presence of longevity risk |
US8799134 | 16 Sep 2011 | 5 Aug 2014 | Genworth Holdings, Inc. | System and method for imbedding a defined benefit in a defined contribution plan |
US8805733 | 29 Sep 2011 | 12 Aug 2014 | Allstate Insurance Company | Single premium deferred annuity |
US9064284 * | 27 Sep 2007 | 23 Jun 2015 | United Services Automobile Association (Usaa) | System and method of providing a financial investment recommendation using a portfolio planner |
US9105063 | 4 Feb 2013 | 11 Aug 2015 | Genworth Holdings, Inc. | Systems and methods for providing a benefit product with periodic guaranteed minimum income |
US9105065 | 29 Apr 2013 | 11 Aug 2015 | Genworth Holdings, Inc. | Systems and methods for providing a benefit product with periodic guaranteed income |
US20040088236 * | 31 Oct 2002 | 6 May 2004 | Manning Kathleen E. | Method and apparatus for investment consulting, benefit projection and investment analysis |
US20040133490 * | 3 Jan 2003 | 8 Jul 2004 | James Thompson | Methods and apparatus for determining a return distribution for an investment portfolio |
US20040172350 * | 15 Nov 2002 | 2 Sep 2004 | Landis Atkinson | System and method for cross funding of multiple annuity contracts |
US20050015284 * | 10 Sep 2004 | 20 Jan 2005 | Edward Macdonald | Methods and systems for smoothing of the assumed long-term discount rate for pension plans and actuarial valuations |
US20050060209 * | 12 Oct 2004 | 17 Mar 2005 | Hill Charles Frederick | Method and system for insuring longer than expected lifetime |
US20050240516 * | 13 Jun 2004 | 27 Oct 2005 | Crocker Greg H | Computer support for mortgage lock option |
US20060253364 * | 7 Jul 2006 | 9 Nov 2006 | Tarbox Brian C | Systems and methods for improving investment performance |
US20070011063 * | 5 Jul 2005 | 11 Jan 2007 | Jonathan Shelon | Generating an annuity payment using a dynamic asset allocation investment |
US20100017342 * | 21 Jan 2010 | The Penn State Research Foundation | Asset allocation based on expected utility of time and wealth | |
US20100306127 * | 2 Jun 2009 | 2 Dec 2010 | Dan Weinberger | Retirement income selector systems and methods |
US20120116988 * | 10 May 2012 | Gerd Infanger | Expected utility maximization in large-scale portfolio optimization | |
US20120158573 * | 31 Jan 2011 | 21 Jun 2012 | Peter K. Trzyna | Computer system to produce and communicate output data to carry out a financial transaction comprising a mortgage loan |
WO2007072482A2 * | 19 Dec 2006 | 28 Jun 2007 | Gad Pinkas | A system and method of managing cash and suggesting transactions in a multi-strategy portfolio |
U.S. Classification | 705/36.00R, 705/4 |
International Classification | G06Q40/00 |
Cooperative Classification | G06Q40/06, G06Q40/08 |
European Classification | G06Q40/06, G06Q40/08 |
Date | Code | Event | Description |
---|---|---|---|
18 Jun 2002 | AS | Assignment | Owner name: IBBOTSON ASSOCIATES, INC., ILLINOIS Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:CHEN, PENG;MILEVSKY, MOSHE A.;REEL/FRAME:013028/0337;SIGNING DATES FROM 20020607 TO 20020615 |
2 Apr 2010 | FPAY | Fee payment | Year of fee payment: 4 |
18 Mar 2014 | FPAY | Fee payment | Year of fee payment: 8 |